Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SENTENCED.

THE WHARF PILLAGERS. EHRMAN EXPOSES THE SYSTEM. ALLEGES OTHER OFFENCES. EIGHT YEARS' HARD LABOUR. TWO YEARS FOR HADDEN. GLOVER RECEIVES NINE MONTHS. Joseph Ehrman, Arthur Glover, and Alfred Ernest liadden. the three persons so far found guilty of offences in connection with the perpetration of extensive wharf pillaging at Auckland, were brought before Mr Justice Chapman for sentence at the Auckland Supreme Court this morning. Arthur Glover, found guilty of forging a false telegram and being an accessory after the fact of theft, with a recommendation to leniency, was first called on. Mr Lundon, who appeared for prisoner, pointed out that this was the first occasion upon which Glover had been charged with any offence, and so far as was known, though lie had lived his life in this city, there was nothing to his detriment until this unfortunate business acquaintance with another, resulting in the young man being brought into contact with Ehrman. Apparently the prisoner had not been the originator or thinker in respect to tin' thefts. His appearance or one's knowledge of him did not suggest that he was a brainy man. He was a young fellow who had very little thinking on his own account to do. and probably very little laculty for thought. He was married, and had been trying to live on the small wages un'il he had the opportunity of entering into a species of business partnership with Ehrman—a partnership effected under an agreement signed in February of 1010. ami by which he was to receive £2 a week. ilir Honor: 1 don't care for these things at all, Mr Lundon. 1 have nothing tt, do with him or his actions before the date of the .-ending of the telegram, when the jury say he became culpable. The jury expressly stated he was not a party to the original scheme, but became a party at the date of the telegram. They found him guilty of forging the telegram, ami from that date he became a party to the conceal ment of Ehrman's criminal acts.

Mr Lundon proceeded to point out that Glo\cr was merely a tool in the hands of others, and that he had no control over the business of which he was a partner. His Honor (sharply): 1 k-.jw nothing of that, and it is apart fi .u what 1 must consider. Ehrman found guilty of« scheming and carrying out thefts, and Glover of forging a telegram to aid Ehrman in getting away with the goods.

Mr Lundon: I will ask your zlonor to believe that in forging the telegram Glover was not acting on his own volition.

His Honor: He was acting on his own volition in that Ehrman Was 400 miles away.

Mr Lundon remarked that Glover was acting on a telegram sent to him, and up to that moment he had no participation in and apparently no thought of participating in any dishonest act, while he had no thought that what he was doing was criminal. That position was clear from the openness and frankness of his subsequent movements and actions.

His Honor: All these are matters which I have necessarily considered, and upon which you have addressed the jury. He acted in a way to aid the act of a thief.

Mr Lundon submitted that it was not a premeditated criminal act, but prisoner was under the direction and control of another, and there was no evidence of any other act of a criminal tendencv. His Honor: There is no need to review the facts, save on the assumption that j. have no memory at all.

Mr. Lundon: He did nothing after. His Honor: The forged telegram necessarily shows he was making himself an accessory then. It cannot mean anything else, and has no other meaning. He was aiding Ehrman in getting away goods. You need not necessarily assume I am devoid of intelligence and memory, Mf. Lundon.

Counsel further directed attention to the fact that the jury had recommended clemency, and asked that prisoner be dealt with in such a way that he would in his future life be able to retrieve the one serious blunder of his life. In reply to his Honor. Detective Powell stated tha' beyond an addiction to drink nothing was known against prisoner's character. •'[ will assume there is nothing against his character?"' added his Honor. Addressing the prisoner, his Honor remarked that he was sorry to see him in the position in which lie was placed. Every consideration would be given to the recommendation of the jury, but the only effect would be to lessen the imprisonment to be imposed. A telegram had been deliberately forged and the jury had found prisoner guilty of becoming an accessory to the theft committed by Ehrman. The telegram meant that and nothing else. Having acquired knowledge that the goods had been stolen prisoner proceeded to aid Ehrman in getting them away, and fhe goods would never have been finally and effectively stolen had not the telegram been forged, or had not Glover discussed the matter with the Union Company and persuaded them to part with cases on indemnity. For that prisoner could not be exonerated, and his Honor regarded it as a very serious offence for a man to knowingly take a hand in very extensive thefts, even though he was innocent ol the theft when it was perpetrated. Such offences had to be dealt with by imprisonment. A sentence of nine months' imnrisonrrent was imposed.

"MEAN, SHADY ACT.'' HADDEN'S SHARE IN THE THEFT. UNJUST ASPERSIONS ON OTHERS. Hadden was the second of the accused to be sentenced. He was represented t>y Mr. J. K. Heed, who pointed out that prior to the theft of which prisoner had been found guilty nothing was charged against him. Standing out prominently in the whole series of thefts was the perfectly clear indication that there had ibeen. a master-mind—some-one who had organised the extensive stealing that had come to light. From the evidence presented it was clear, too, that Hadden had been drinking heavily, and while that was no excuse, the possibility was suggested that a man who was addicted to the weakness was more pliable in the hands of a master-mind than the person who resisted drink and was absolutely sober. Counsel suggested that Hadden was kept in a state of drunkenness, and was supplied with drink from time to time, and while in that state, with his moral force lowered, he would fall into the temptation to assist in the crime of theft more readily than the man with his moral faculties at their best. While living in New Zealand lladden's character had been above suspicion, and the same could be said of him before he came from flK'dney. It was an unfortunate thing for the prisoner that he ever became acquainted witli responsible for conceiving and carrying out the thefts. He was dragged into it, and while under the weakening influence oi liquor gave way to the temptation.

His Honor remarked that hp would atta.'a duo consideration to the jury's recommendation for leniency, but the result would only be a reduction of the term of imprisonment he proposed to impose. In this ease various features had to be considered. It would be idle to suggest that prisoner was unaware of the wharf thieving that was going on, and that suspicion was falling unjustly on innocent, people. With that knowledge in his mind, that pilfering was going on—'because no one could help hearing about it, no! only in Auckland, but hundreds of miles away—he ran the risk of taking a hand in stealing the case of goods on which he had been found guilty. Not only that, but he showed himself an active participant in the matter, and had tempted at least one other man to take a hand in a theft. There was no other imputation against the prisoner and his Honor said iie would assume that this \vu the only instance in which Hidden had stolen goods from the wharf. The theft in question involved speaking to several people, and tempting one to take a hand. "<>n each occasion." said his Honor, addressing the prisoner, "'that you made up voyr mind to sneak to a carter or other person to get their assistance in taking away property. :t must have occurred to von and your conscience that you were doing an act that was no' only an injury to property, lint, which would cast unjust aspersions upon someone else, or upon numbers of persons. It was not only a dishonest act. but a mean, shabby act. His Honor added that he dill not intend those factors to influence him in adding to the punishment merited, hut they were ro,i>ons why lie could not adopt anv o»7ier course than to impose salutary punishment. A term of two year.-,' imprisonment was inflicted.

HABITUALLY ENGAGED IN PILLAGING. JUDGE'S OPINION OF EHRMAN. THE BRAINS OF THE SCHEME. Ehrman was the last to he dealt with, and he was represented by Mr K. A. Singer. At the outset counsel intimated that in accordance with the undertaking given a few days since a statement had been prepared by the pris oner disclosing all that he knew concerning the thefts. With the permission <;\ ais ;H,onov, Mr Singer read the statement, which is as follows: "I am 56 years of age, and have resided in - Auckland for 30 years. For many years I was a clothing manufacturer and warehouseman, employing over 200 people. Of late years I have been acting casually as a commercial traveller until in the month of February, 1910, 1 purchased the business of A. E. Glover, Island fruit merchant, carried on by him in Fort-street, Auckland, taking his son Arthur Clover as a partner. I paid £2OO as purchase price. This business was carried on by me with Arthur Glover under the name of Glover and Co. In the month of July, 1010, Arthur Glover asked me to come with him to be introduced to a man he knew and wanted mc to meet. He did not then tell me his name or what he was. We went down together to Partridge's corne; in Queen-street, and there Glover introduced me to Hadden. A ease of drapery goods had already arrived at the store, and been received by Arthur Glover, who had told me that he had to give a certain man some £6 for the case. Arthur Glover got the £6 from me before we went out. We met Hadden at Partridge's corner, and Glover then pave the £6 or so to Hadden. I was not told anything that day

as to what Hadden was or how the goods had been procured. Arthur Glover suggested that 1 should travel with the goods, and at the same time get customers for fruit. I went to the Islands shortly after that, and returned at the end of August or thereabouts. I onlv saw Hadden the once 'before I returned from the Islands. On my return Hadden ramp to the store frequently when not tallying. 1 now knew what Hadden was. The taking of ca,scs now became fairly systematic, cases arriving at the store about one* a month. Hadden used to telephone to the store giving information that cases would arrive. As far as I am Hadden is the only tally clerk who is concerned in these matters. It was to Hadden we looked to get the cases out of the sheds. Arthur Glover as a rule received the cases at the store. Hadden constantly received money from me, and I regularly aivided the proceeds of my sales with Arthur Glover equally, after providing for "payments to Hadden. To show me how safe it would be to carry out the system. Arthur Glover explained to m£ how. before I came into the business, and while Arthur Glover was working for his father, and indeed before ever I became acquainted with Arthur Glover at all, Hadden had sent hundreds and hundreds of cases of fruit to Arthur Glover in the same way. the proceeds of the sale of which were divided between Hadden and Arthur Olover. in the month of July, 1911, I determined to give up any connection with this system, and sold the whole business with some £350 worth of assets to Arthur Glover for -£SO, this sum being f ..rn :.-t to cover my personal and a

few business liabilities. I myself--have ma<le practically nothing out of these proceedings. I never even paid any monies to my wife and family for maintenance. I am a persistent sufferer from sciatic neuralgia, and my general health is now seriously impaired. The above statement is true and correct in even,- particular, and I make "the same voluntarily, being desirous of laying bare the whole facts, and exposing my connection therewith.— (Signed) J. Ehrman." "I may add that Hadden's demands for money became so persistent that I had the greatest difficulty in complying with them. On one occasion Hadden demanded the sum of £5 from me, and threatened me that if I did not give him this sum he would go to my son, and tell my son all about the ibus.ness, and in consequence of this threat and of nry anxiety that my son should not know anything, 1 wajs compelled to give Hadden the £5. When Hadden came to see me at Stratford he demanded money from me. He wanted £-1. 1 only had £3. and I had to borrow £1 from Mr. Godfrey Phillips to satisfy Hadden.— (Signed) J. Ehrman.''

Mr Singer remarked that so far as he could understand, the statement revealed the true position with regard to the system under which the extensive thefts had been carried on for the last twelve months. It was obvious, suggested counsel, that so far as the original taking of the numerous cases of goods was concerned, Ehrman could not possibly have taken a pergonal, active pi»rt. His Honor: In the manual act.

Mr Singer: As far as the conception of the scheme is concerned. Ehrman was not what has beeu called the master mind. His Honor: How ,im Tto know that? Mr Singer: 1 ask you to believe that from hin statement.

His Honor: Why should I believe a word of it?

Mr Singer: If you knew Ehrman, quite apart from his previous conviction, which I will deal with in a moment, you will find that he is not a man of brains or of ability, his whole life lias been a business and mental failure. Counsel suggested that the only cause for pointing to Ehrman a.s being the master mind was the fact that the cases against him personally were so numerous, but 'that circumstance was explained when it was considered that he was the person into whose possession the goods went. The fact that he was the party receiving the goods did not necessarily mean that he was the master mind.

His Honor: The master mind may come in at any time, but Ehrman was the man who disposed of the goods. If it had not been for the disposal the scheme could not have been carried on.

Mr Singer contended prisoner was uot the man who conceived (he scheme of thieving. llir Honor: He was the man who enabled the scheme to go on from month to month.

'Mr .-linger: The original suggestion that the scheme should b? started did not come from Ehrman.

His Honor remarked that the actual facts were patent, and the patent fact was that the system could nut go on without the man acting as a eommerei il traveller, and disposing of the stolen property. "He carrieJ on apparently an honest calling." observed His Honor; "there are hundreds of reputable and honest commercial travellers passing through New Zetland, and he passed himself off as one of them."

Mr Singer declared that a document was in existence showing that Ehrman, 'in the month of July of this year, just prior to his last visit to Stratford and Wellington, intended to break himself vlear of his then surroundings. He disposed of his share in the business to Arthur Glover, and the trip was intended by him toiie the last. Counsel admitted that the scheme reached to larg,- dimensions, but it had not been a financial success. The expenses of travelling and freight charges, and the persistent demands—almost blackmailing demands—made upon him by others, and the division of the proceeds amoncrst all sorts of persons naturally reduced the amount of the illicit profits. In fact. Ehrman had made practically nothing out of the stealing and fraud. Mr Singer mentioned that prisoner had prevously been convicted of receiving the proceeds of stolen property. MrTole: Yes, £500; a number of £SO notes.

Singer went on to point out th.it there was only the one record against, the prisoner, and explained the circumstances to show that the crime was not as heinous as it would appear by the sentence of two years' imprisonment. He stated that Ehrman was well up in years, that he was in frail health, and was not likely to survive anything in the nature of an extended term of imprisonment, finally contending that he was used as a tool in the diisposal of the goods, and his services were eagerly seized upon by those who originated the scheme.

"1 was careful to sentence the other men first (before reading your statement, because I thought it was not improbable you would say something to their, prejudice," remarked his Honor in addressing the prisoner. "I did not want to be influenced in my determination of what imprisonment to impose by anyirresponsible statement bv a fellow-con-spirator. 1 am sure I was right in taking that course, because your statement does incriminate those men in numerous crimes, and it Would have been wrong to have added to the punishment by being influenced in my mind, unconsciously perhaps, by your statement. 1 do not know how true your statement is; I have no means whatever of investigating its truth, and it is not my duty to do so." His Honor went on to say that, so far as Ehrruan's version, as shown in the statement, of his connection with the thieving was concerned, it might be true, but it did not make very much difference whether the crime was suggested by one or both of the men sentenced that morning. According to the account given by Ehrman. those men were the actual perpetrators of numerous crimes: in fact, of a whole series ojs crimes. So far as it affected the prisoner, his Honor was prepared t:> accept his statement that he had taken a more active part in the four crimes of which he had been found guilty. He alleged* further, however, that the system of stealing fruit was an old-established one. -and originated before lie joined the business. The important fact on Ehrman's own showing was that if he did not scheme and originate the system of wharf thieving, he rendered it possible and profitable. The system could not have been carried on without the assistance of a man who pretended to be a commercial traveller, who carried the goods to a distance, and disposed of them while stanSing shoulder to shoulder with honest commercial travellers. It would have been impossible to trot away with suitable quantities of goods and sell them in the city, and the svsteni required an active, trained commercial man. Prisoner made a successful trade of stealing or receiving stolen goods and selling them all round the country. His Honor did not know whether he had made the venture profitable, because a man who had to take friends into his ennfirloncp rrenernllv fmj-«l *hr??» f^ l, —;■'-

-expensive "eOnnecTTons, and no-doubt- Eatman found it so. From the conviction* recorded, and what appeared on the statement, it was a fact that Ehrman had been habitually engaged in pillaging the merchants of the city- _£Ogulaj±y and habitually, and making a trade~of it. That was his own character of his doings. It might be that what he said of Hadden and Glover was true; that Hadden confiscated the goods, and that Glover was the convenient fence for_hiding them, while prisoner was prepared to dispose of them. The police would probably investigate that allegation further. It was a fact that the whole system would have broken down bad it not been for Ehrman's planning, and it was therefore quite reasonable to oaf that he was the centre of the system, and his brains the central brains of the' system; while the other men were merely using their force.

His Honor imposed a sentence of iour years on the first count and four years on the second, the sentences to be cumulative; with four years each on the thirl and fourth counts, the latter sentences to lie concurrent with the former, making a term of eight years, and at the same time Ehrman was declared to be an habitual criminal. . . ...

His Honor intimated to -Mr.- Singer that he had some doubt as to whether he could add the declaration, making Ehrman an habitual criminal, to tha sentence, but he said he would state a case to the Court of Appeal for consideration. If the Court ruled against it the declaration would be renewed.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19110902.2.21

Bibliographic details

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 209, 2 September 1911, Page 5

Word Count
3,554

SENTENCED. Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 209, 2 September 1911, Page 5

SENTENCED. Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 209, 2 September 1911, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert